Re: GitLab postmortem

On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 10:58 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 15/01/2019 10:48, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 14:22 +0100, Carlos Soriano wrote:

It has been a few months since we moved to GitLab. Apart of
issues, specific annoyances and frustrations, seems it has been
generally good. I would like to gather some general feeling about
Things that really made a constant impact to you and your work,
bad or good. Feel free to provide feedback about the transition
the administration of GitLab instance too. Free form.

Please keep the mail chain one way from you towards the world, so
don't get trapped on specifics, we can address stuff raised here
individually out of list. Personally, I'll ping you on IRC or so
if I
can do something to help.

Of course, feel free to msg me directly on IRC/email too.

My main problem is/was that contributing by pushing a branch is
easy, but you can't contribute by pushing a branch if you're not
allowed to push a branch. So this isn't a problem when you're in
@GNOME, and the project is as well, but I've not bothered pushing
fixes to non-GNOME group modules.

It should still be easy to fork the project, push a branch to your
and then submit a MR. Or did I misunderstand?

Too many trips to the web browser, too many re-clones of the repo (or
esoteric git command-lines), and too many left-over repos in your own
namespace. It's a problem I have with github as well, it's the same

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]